More

Partner Benefits For Gay Troops: Issue Complicates 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal

Dadt Gay Troop Benefits

KIMBERLY HEFLING   03/26/10 03:15 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — If gay service members are allowed to serve openly, the military will face another tough question: Should gay partners be entitled to military benefits?

Momentum appears to be building for ending the ban on gays in the military. New rules ordered Thursday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates make it harder to discharge men and women under the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." His decision is intended as a stopgap measure as Congress weighs whether to go along with President Barack Obama's request to repeal the law.

Since the draft ended in 1973, spousal benefits have increasingly been used as an incentive to recruit and retain an effective force. Today, more than half of all troops sport a wedding ring.

Benefits for married service members include college tuition for a spouse and the right of a spouse to be at a wounded service member's bedside. Spouses also have access to military health care and commissaries worldwide, and married service members receive better housing and even extra pay when they go to war.

The ticket to qualifying for those benefits is a marriage certificate. Heterosexual couples have a choice whether to marry, but same-sex marriages are legal in only five states and Washington, D.C. Whether same-sex partnerships would be recognized by the military and what benefits might be afforded gay couples would become issues if the ban were lifted.

"It will be a whole complex row of dominoes that will fall as a result of this," said Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

Already, Gates has included the issue of benefits in a review of how to lift the repeal, which is due Dec. 1.

Repealing the ban without offering same-sex partner benefits would be like telling gay service members they are equal but not giving them all the advantages of service, said Tiffany Belle, 33, of Long Beach, Calif., a lesbian and former sailor. "You're basically letting us be free being ourselves in the military, but then you're not letting us reap the benefits."

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said it's unrealistic to think the military would be out front of the rest of the government in offering benefits to unmarried partners.

"They don't do it for straight people, and they're very unlikely to do it for gay people," Frank said.

But, in addition to repealing "don't ask, don't tell," Obama has called for getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act and has moved to extend some federal benefits to same-sex partners.

Obama has approved small changes in benefits available to same-sex couples who work for the federal government, such as visitation and dependent-care rights. The State Department extended benefits to gay diplomats, such as the right for their domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports and for paid travel to and from foreign posts.

Larry Korb, a senior fellow at the Democratic-led Center for American Progress, who served as an assistant secretary of defense in the early 1980s, said what the military would have to work through is similar to what the State Department and some federal agencies have done.

"My own personal view is that if they want to make it happen, they can," Korb said.

U.S. military officials are concerned that recruitment might suffer if they open the door to gay service members and their families. They worry that the Southern, Christian base from which the military relies heavily to fill its ranks will resist the change.

But if they don't adequately address the benefits issue, it could lead to gay service members leaving the military because there's no provision for caring for their families, said Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for the veterans group AMVETS.

"They won't be on equal footing as their heterosexual counterparts," Gallucci said.

Some repeal proponents say that lifting the ban should be the focus, not the what ifs related to benefits. They say discussions about whether the Pentagon would recognize gay troops' partners aren't relevant now.

"Let's get rid of the ban first and then look at those issues," said Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which seeks to repeal the law.

Frank, who has written a book about the policy, said opponents of repeal use a "thorny questions" strategy to make the process of lifting the ban seem far more complicated than it is by bringing up issues like benefits.

One former service member who is watching the debate is Melanie Costa, 34, of Franklin, Mass. The Iraq veteran said she left the military after four years in the Marines and six in the Army Reserves so she could marry a woman in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. She said if the repeal is dropped she'll re-enlist – if her wife gets benefits.

"If I got deployed, and she wasn't able to get all the benefits as another married couple, there's not really a point," Costa said.

___

Associated Press writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Palm Center: http://www.palmcenter.org/

AMVETS: http://www.amvets.org/

Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network: http://www.sldn.org/

Center for American Progress: http://www.americanprogress.org/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — If gay service members are allowed to serve openly, the military will face another tough question: Should gay partners be entitled to military benefits? Momentum appears to be buil...
WASHINGTON — If gay service members are allowed to serve openly, the military will face another tough question: Should gay partners be entitled to military benefits? Momentum appears to be buil...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 385
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
monicaangela 07:54 AM on 03/26/2010
Why these superficial reasons for making this a hard decision for the country. Let's look at it this way...we have a country where 5 States and the District of Columbia has said their Gay citizens are entitled to rights that Gay citizens in the rest of the nation are not entitled to...discriminatory practice in my opinion, we are not a nation of regions like the warlords have in Afghanistan, or at least I  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaleFace215
11:37 PM on 03/27/2010
We can accept racists with tattoos bragging about their racist pride and wife beaters and criminals but not homosexual? I'd rather lie in a bunk with a homo than a violent, racist criminal. duh!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:41 PM on 03/27/2010
A little off topic, but the editor who chose to use the picture of HRC flag as representative of the movement for equality is grossly misinformed. The HRC does nothing to advance the cause.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Darthwave
08:04 PM on 03/27/2010
Can a soldier's girlfriend get benefits. Nope. This is a entirely another issue that will needs to be addressed with legalizing gay marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaleFace215
11:36 PM on 03/27/2010
A soldier's girlfriend can marry him and get the benefits.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Darthwave
11:00 AM on 03/29/2010
duhhh.. did you read the comment "his is a entirely another issue that will needs to be addressed with legalizing gay marriage."

Gay marriage needs to be legalized so this is not a issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
glockman
03:24 PM on 03/27/2010
"Should gay partners be entitled to military benefits?"

I think a better, more appropriate question would be, Why wouldn't they?
01:27 PM on 03/27/2010
What about equality is so difficult to understand?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rougebaisers
12:52 PM on 03/27/2010
Until everyone starts treating every one around them equally, regardless of the colour of ones skin, or weight, or gender, or SEXUAL PREFERENCE, this is NOT America.
12:01 PM on 03/27/2010
If a couple is legally registered as such (via marriage license or civil union or domestic partner) you should be entitled to benefits. There is no question here only another wedge issue to use in the media.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
greysells2
grey cells matter
11:10 AM on 03/27/2010
I guess if they were legally deemed to be spouses, either through marriage or a civil union. Would that partner receive dependent benefits like living expenses, dependent housing, survivors benefits, etc.? Sure, all of them.

Am not sure how the common law doctrine of "common law marriage" applies here. If a couple live to gether as a married couple for a specified time they are deemed to be married. Do they have the same rights and benefits of the above. Say a guy and a gal hook up and they have two kids together but never actually marry. The certainly are living together as a couple in a relationship of permanence and raising a family. He is in the military, are they "married" ? Say it is a gay couple. Is it the same as the hetero couple?
05:37 PM on 03/28/2010
Very few states have common-law marriage statutes on the books.
11:07 AM on 03/27/2010
The answer is simple. Equal protection under the law for all citizens as guaranteed in the Constitution. Of course the reality is many Americans don't believe in equality, they prefer their citizenship steeped in a nice hate stew. They shame America, they shame themselves. They shame the Christ they profess to believe in while ignoring His teachings. They disgust me.
11:51 PM on 03/26/2010
Marriage equality and human equality, it's time to repeal DADT. Stop being bigots, stop treating the LGBT community as second hand citizens
05:53 AM on 03/27/2010
"second hand citizens" that is as second class citizen

wow get it right
04:23 PM on 03/27/2010
Those types of remarks just take away from the topic. They also make a person trying to make a point feel embarrassed. I happen to agree with that poster, even with the mistake.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
BoyInBOYCOTT
11:42 PM on 03/26/2010
The question I wonder about, would a military chaplain on a base where same sex marriage is legal, be forbidden to marry an active duty service member and his or her spouse?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Cheryl2
real Americans celebrate diversity
01:25 PM on 03/27/2010
The Defense of Marriage Act would prohibt the government from recognizing any same sex union as lawful and so I assume it would not allow a military chaplin to perform an act it cannot legally recognize.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
BoyInBOYCOTT
11:38 PM on 03/26/2010
We can extend benefits to legally married couples gay AND straight, or we can remove the benefits for straight ONLY couples.
YOU CAN'T DO anything else legally if DADT is repealed.
photo
ThankGodhesgone
Always Progressive
11:18 PM on 03/26/2010
They're doing exactly the same job, so why not?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MaybeMilo
"You can't fight in here. This is the War room!"
11:00 PM on 03/26/2010
If they're legally married then they'll get benefits - I don't see how it could be otherwise.

...of course, we are talking about America here:

One nation
Under fraud.
05:39 PM on 03/28/2010
Only legally married opposite sex couples get benefits. The legal marriages of same sex couples are not recognized.
10:43 PM on 03/26/2010
There's a simple solution to this problem. Let them get married.